wolfe’s Growling Musings

Same rules as the first one. This one will be linked in the sidebar.

Update: Other sidebar tweaks:

Added (which I thought I’d done) Say no to Crack and also Teri’s site, The road lester travelled.

Renamed “Wonderful Luka” to the more accurate “Engender Truth”, though I don’t think she’ll be posting much til post-Christmas.

Removed, alas, Dakota Smith’s blog link since he doesn’t seem active. If he does become active again, back up it shall go.

If you’re a regular reader and commenter and you’d like to be blogrolled, please let me know.

-wolfe

Because it’s funny, and the lad in the final graphics looks a bit like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes, I point everyone to Diesel’s excellent blogger quiz. Even if you don’t currently blog, this will tell you what kind of blogger you would be.

I won’t give away what kind of blogger Diesel’s quiz says I am, (trust me, though, an awesome kind!), but we can discuss our results below.

Do make sure you follow the instructions in step 4 exactly.

There’s also this more… boring… quiz on what kind of blogger you are. (Apparently I’m an ‘insightful pundit’ blogger. At least they’re half right, though I think my results in Diesel’s quiz are just way cooler.)

-wolfe

Never fearing to delve into a story and come up with a completely different (yet factually accurate) spin, I turn ‘Veggies are more intelligent’ into ‘Vegans are stupid’. And treat my readers to some Friday Boobies.

‘Vegetarians are more intelligent’ says the headline.

Wonderful to see a vegan woman who cares so much about
what she puts in her body. Credit: Publicity still via pestola.gr

A provocative claim:

[R]esearch show[s] vegetarians are more intelligent than their meat-eating friends.

A study of thousands of men and women revealed that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat.

Granted, we’ve the usual caveats on what IQ measures. Stipulated. And this seems almost like saying “Being vegetarian makes you more intelligent.” Except it doesn’t.

People who eat chicken and fish (but supposedly no red meat) are just as intelligent. And they sure aren’t vegetarians.
And the vegetarians? Turns out they were already more intelligent in their childhood, at age 10, before they switched to a vegetarian diet.

those who were brainiest as children were more likely to have become vegetarian as adults, shunning both meat and fish.

The typical adult veggie had a childhood IQ of around 105 - around five points higher than those who continued to eat meat as they grew up.

There was no difference in IQ between strict vegetarians and those who classed themselves as veggie but still ate fish or chicken.

While vegetarians tended to be people from higher social classes, there appeared to be some evidence that there was a negative correlation between wealth and being a vegetarian. i.e., being a vegetarian is consistent with being poorer than you would otherwise be, though not more stupid.

In other words, this study seems to say that intelligent people are more likely to care about what they eat, within reason. And possibly being vegetarian makes you poorer, but not dumber.
But the meat of the matter? Vegans are stupid.

However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10.

So, avoid dating vegans if you’re thinking of having kids.
-wolfe

This piece is about a politician. Or about writing. Or images. Or what the media does, both subtly and blatantly. Even though ed makes an appearance and makes fun of me, it’s mostly not that funny.

We have a righteous wind at our backs, and, as we stand at the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices and meet the challenges that face us.

Americans do seem to love perpetual political campaigning… for all that we say we don’t. Or maybe just US journalists love it.

The somewhat Kennedy-esque first TV commercial for Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s possible presidential run has surfaced here.

Sasha, Michelle, and Barack Obama (l to r).
Scott Olson, Getty Images

Note what I did with his name above? I gave his name in full. This probably subtly attacks the man: the technically accurate “Jr.” — he was named for his father — is somewhat demeaning. The ‘Hussein’? A lot of people are talking about that. Some of (right-wing) talk radio is pushing the ‘Hussein’ angle.

Granted, a politician running in 1948 named “George Hitler Jones” might have attracted some attention, but Hussein is a much more common name.

(There’s also the subtle point that mostly full names are only given in the U.S. for notorious serial killers).

I don’t think there’s any ‘there’ there. It’s about as controversial as the “W” in George W. Bush’s name. Both are named for ancestors. And, as Senator Obama sensibly noted, if you can get by the name “Barack Obama” the Hussein really shouldn’t give you pause.

But I thought I’d just dissect my reference to his name. Signals we send are subtle; sometimes unintentional. They can be propagandistic nevertheless. Henceforth, I’ll refer to the man as “Barack Obama”, but I thought the fact that his middle name is “Hussein” is an interesting bit of trivia.

I suppose I could leave it as an exercise for the reader, but I’ll point out the two ways I boosted him in this article.

First, opening with “We have a righteous wind at our backs”. I could have opened with no quote, or quoting him denying the scandal of a Chicago land deal (see below). That would have certainly altered the initial perception of the man in this post.

Second, a smiling picture of the man with his family. Short of kissing babies or running into a fire to rescue people, there’s little that’s more telegenic for a politician. Pictures can exalt or destroy politicians. Consider the two rides in tanks of two politicians in the ’80’s: Margaret Thatcher and Michael Dukakis. (The latter was the Democratic governor of Massachusetts who challenged George H.W. Bush for the presidency in 1988).

Everyone believed Dukakis was a technocratic nerd (I say that as a bit of a technocrat and maybe a nerd — though at least a tall and athletic one — myself). [can someone blog and NOT be a nerd? --ed.]. The tank pictures didn’t help.

No one in this galaxy, or our neighboring galaxies, believed Thatcher was anything but tough — very tough. Riding in a tank — however prim and womanly she looked — just plain felt like the kind of thing she’d do on weekends for recreation. After running over Michael’s Foot. [Everyone's going to think you mean Dukakis' foot, and no one will get the joke --ed. (well it made you laugh -wolfe). Touché, but it's still a bad joke -- ed.]

Dukakis was dressed photo-op-style for it, down to having a helmet with his name on it. Thatcher was wearing a flowing, female [trouble using the word 'feminine' with Thatcher? -ed.] ensemble that looked as though she’d just stepped out of Selfridges. [Little known fact: the founder of Selfridges was born in Ripon, Wisconsin, a town that Diesel should like].

The results? Well, here goes:

Hi, I’m Mike Dukakis, and I’m a dork. AP Photo

Which way is Moscow? BBC Photo

Dukakis, in all his 5′6″ magnificence [come on, give his real height -ed.] OK, OK, … Dukakis in all his 5′8″ magnificence looked, like, well, a technocratic dork. That’s worse than nerd. I think. Worse yet, going up against a tall, patrician genuine war hero in George H.W. Bush (youngest carrier aviator pilot in the USN; gave up university to go into combat in WW 2) he looked… well… pathetic is the kindest word.

Thatcher, by contrast, looked as though she wanted to nuke Moscow, yet unlike Dukakis was completely inappropriately dressed.

Papers that endlessly reprinted the Dukakis disaster of a photo-op were subtly saying “vote Republican”. Or maybe they were saying “Dukakis is an idiot”. Similar thing I guess. Papers that endlessly reprinted the Thatcher tank photo-op were, of course, the Sun.

With that digression into politician photos and photo-ops, we come to an important point on Obama. Recent allegations have surfaced that he was the beneficiary (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) in a sweet land deal seemingly orchestrated by a supporter of his.

Now see what I just did? I talked endlessly about other things, including going back to the 1980’s then unleashed an important bit of current (negative) news on Barack Obama.

This is what newspapers call ‘burying the lede’. (Yes, ‘lede’ not ‘lead’, though it means much the same thing).

Newspaper stories, unlike blog posts or newspaper columns, are written so that they can be chopped off, arbitrarily, at the end any paragraph, after about 1-3 paragraphs. Try it in a good newspaper and you’ll see. It’s quite an interesting style of writing.

By ‘burying the lede’, you not only hope that the conclusion (A1 story continued on page A17) will not be read because of a ‘jump’ in pagination, you also hope that online readers won’t read it, either because of a ‘jump’ (beyond a big online ad) or because they are bored. You also faintly hope an editor may excise part of the damaging information at a paragraph break. Purely for space constraints of course. Even online space constraints. Of course.
But you can then truthfully say, yes, we reported on Obama’s land scandal problems in a page A1 story.

Needless to say, when it’s a Republican, the lede tends not to be so buried.

Senator Obama’s land scandal? Oh, it’s smelly. But pretty much par for the course with politicians. Seems about as bad as anything George W. Bush has gotten up to, but only one instance rather than several. And nothing near Hilary Clinton’s “Whitewater” and “Cattlegate” scandals. (In the latter, a $100,000 bribe to her husband was ‘laundered’ through Hillary Clinton.) And Senator Obama’s reacting appropriately, I think. You can read the linked article for more information. Unless Senator Obama is lying, there’s not much ‘there’ there.

What do I like about the man? Though this is a buried lede, I’m boldfacing it in the hopes that it will be seen. From Wikipedia:

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes a nearly race-blind early childhood. He writes: “That my father looked nothing like the people around me –- that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk –- barely registered in my mind.

Wikipedia goes on (accurately, I think), to describe him as a cultural and ethnic Rorschach test:

an ink spot on which his fans can project their own personal histories and aspirations. Obama’s own self-narrative helps encourage diverse multiethnic affinities. In Dreams from My Father, he links his maternal family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis, president of the southern Confederacy during the Civil War. Speaking before an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama likened the linguistic roots of his first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning blessed.

This country is too screwed up on ethnicity and race. To our detriment. I hope that we’ll see an end to legally enforced racial discrimination by the 2020’s, and an end to most other forms this century. But I’m not holding my breath.

In the end, do I support the man? Heck no. His voting record in Illinois was virtually unreconstructed Marxism. His quotes are long on platitudes and short on ideas. But I think he’s a good and decent man and one worth thoughtfully looking at. You may differ.

-wolfe

This story is pretty sad. Especially since the man concerned had to know it was coming. Or maybe he really did think being a Democrat gave him +5 armor of invulnerability to impertinent media questions?

It begs the question, of course: How can the Intelligence Committee do effective oversight of U.S. spy agencies when its leaders don’t know basics about the battlefield? …

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,� Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?�

“Sure,� I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,� he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

At least he was somewhat more knowledgeable than two of the Republicans on the committee were. On the other hand, he had several months warning that these questions were being asked by this reporter, after his two colleagues were ridiculed in the New York Times (justly so, for once).

On this one, I’m against a partisan spin. There seem to be plenty of political ‘leaders’, both Republican and Democrat who seem profoundly ignorant of the details of the forces we’re facing. It would have been nice, of course, to see the NY Times, before the election, publish both Democrat and Republican ignorance of these issues, but, hey, what do you expect of a pamphlet run out of Howard Dean’s office? [so you couldn't resist at least one partisan dig? -ed.]

What to do? Hope they learn, I guess, and try and shame them into learning. Hence this blog post, in its own tiny way.

Here’s the crash course for Chairman Reyes and his colleagues:

Islam is divided into two primary theological camps: Shiite and Sunni. Essentially, the Shiites believe that there is no continuity (after the death of Mohammed) of divinely inspired political leadership. Only the heirs of the fourth Caliph (leader of the Muslim world or Caliphate — roughly analogous to a kingdom), Ali, were legitimate religious leaders. Moreover, when the 12th Imam (religious leader) disappeared in 931 A.D., they believed that brought an end to divine leadership (via humans).

The Sunni, by contrast, believe that there was an unbroken divinely inspired succession of Caliphs all the way into the 20th century, ceasing only with the post-World War I breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

You can now imagine how devastating this was for a devout Sunni — an end to an unbroken succession of leadership by God. Imagine, for a devout, fundamentalist Catholic an abrupt end to the apostolic succession, and the Pope and Cardinals vanishing completely like dust in the wind. Then imagine that the Pope was their Lord Temporal as well as Lord Spirtual.

And you’ve got some idea of the repercussions for Sunni fundamentalists.

And you can imagine the arguments between the Sunni and the Shiites.

Thus, the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a reactionary force in Egypt in 1928. Hating what they viewed as Western permissiveness/modernism/Christianity, they sought to overthrow that by force. Gradually, the Brotherhood nominally shifted to non-violence over the century to come. But not before birthing Hamas, and, effectively, al-Qaeda. These three, are, of course, Sunni.

The major Shiite terrorist group (depending on whether or not we define the nation of Iran as a terrorist group) is of course Hezbollah. A creature of Iran, operating in Palestine. Shiite to the core, it is nevertheless seemingly willing to work with Sunni extremists against ‘zionists’ (Jews) and ‘crusaders’ (westerners).

In the end, the Shiites are perhaps 10-15% of Islam; the Sunni almost all of the balance.

Here endeth the lesson.

-wolfe

Fiery the Angels rose, and as they rose deep thunder roll’d
Around their shores.

-William Blake. America: A Prophecy.

Discovery streaking over Daytona Beach.
AP/Daytona Beach News-Journal, Nigel Cook.

Discovery night launch with a one-hour time exposure,
as seen from Titusville, Florida. Rick Fowler, Reuters.

On a slow race against time to finish the International Space Station before America’s shuttle fleet is retired, the Discovery lifted off Saturday, 9 December 2006 in a rare night launch.

In clear skies throughout much of Florida, the sight was spectacular as night turned to day.

While the shuttle remains a technological marvel of 1970’s-era engineering, it’s a dead end as far as manned space exploration goes, with neither the safety, reliability, turnaround time, nor low costs originally promised of the reusable orbiter program.

That said, I’m still happy to see people slipping the surly bonds of earth.

-wolfe

It’s not my birthday today, but it was certainly celebrated very recently. Wolfeday is of course that famous holiday celebrated on the second Sunday in December… so shall stand in nicely for any putative birthday.

I realized I had to blog about this because one of the gifts I received was serendipitous and auspicious as far as this blog is concerned. Bear (ha) in mind that in my regular non-blogging life, I do not use the terms ‘wolfe’ or ‘Wolf’ to any unusual degree. I do have an affinity for wildlife, and I do have a good deal of art in that vein, but none that includes wolves.

The Power of a Dream: Jody Bergsma

You can imagine my surprise when I was handed this 8.5×11″ card by someone special.And while I grant you the artist’s writing is somewhat new-age rubbish, I still quite liked it in this context. An auspicious choice, considering this blog:

At the center of this composition is an ancient mathematical form known as the Fibonacci sequence. It is a spiral, a timeless symbol. It is the hidden eye of the largest wolf head.

Wolves are a lesson in courage and endurance. They live in some of the most harsh and unforgiving parts of the world. Call upon wolf as a source of inspiration. What begins as a dream can be brought to life by the same power that motivates Wolf.

Since no one there knew about my blog here, I had to stifle a roar of laughter. But my broad smile was, I think, thanks enough for the giver.

So happy Wolfeday, happy Wolfeweek! If you want to give a gift, link a story or picture of a wolf, Wolf, Wolfe or wolves, below.
-wolfe

On Blank Verse, and on a Prelude to William Cowper.
Teri writes of a poet who’s meant a great deal to her, William Cowper. She cites an interesting poem of his, on the reaction of hunting animals to … well, to what is natural.

He plays a lovely jest with language and almost, dare I say, physics, near the end; I shan’t spoil it, click the link and go read what Teri wrote.

Cowper was an Englishman (1731-1800) who wrote, movingly, both of the great topics of the day, and, very popularly, of simple life in the English countryside. He was also an accomplished hymnist and fervent evangelical Christian.

Indeed, it was this last that was perhaps his salvation from terrible mental illness that plagued him for most of his life. Undeniably brilliant and creative, he was prone to deep depression, and, possibly, schizophrenia.

Flowers are nice, surely?

Now, I rather like Cowper. I’m not certain he’s great art for The Ages, but his language is certainly highly evocative, and he writes with wonderful expression. In short, the kind of poetry that both men and women can like.

He wrote in blank verse: that is to say, in language that did not rhyme, but had a regular meter (rhythm, if you will).

Marlowe and Shakespeare were perhaps the pioneers of this in the English language: Shakespeare (in King John), spectacularly, but dangerously (given less competent imitators who plagued the medium for centuries, and still do today, only we now call it “rock and roll lyrics”) used it at times to convey abrupt thematic and dramatic transitions:

Death?
My lord?
A grave.
He shall not live.

Consider how amazing a break this was with styles of the times, and what a challenge for actors. Verily, Shakespeare was the Quentin Tarantino of his day.

Milton (of Paradise Lost), embraced this form, and its ability to convey complex ideas (outside of drama) with superlative skill. Cowper was accused at times of imitating Milton too much. Given the centuries-long legacy of blank verse, this seems perhaps a tad unfair; certainly, though, Milton was a staggeringly talented exemplar of this during Cowper’s lifetime.

On a similar topic, we can contrast John Bunyan’s rhymed verse, from Pilgrim’s Progress (mostly prose, but with some verse):

But blessed Michael helped me, and I,
By dint of sword, did quickly make him fly.
Therefore to him let me give lasting praise,
And thank and bless his holy name always.

And Milton, writing similarly:

MICHAEL and his Angels prevalent
Encamping, plac’d in Guard thir Watches round,
Cherubic waving fires: on th’ other part
SATAN with his rebellious disappeerd,
Far in the dark dislodg’d, and void of rest,
His Potentates to Councel call’d by night;

Now note the difference. The first is coherently written, well-written. It’s a classic of English Literature. The second, likewise.

But look at the phrases: “void of rest”. “call’d by night”. “Guard thir watches round”.

These are phrases that the poet probably wouldn’t have chosen — certainly not in such a mellifluous flow — were he not to have the privilege of writing blank verse.

And these are magnificent phrases.

On Wolfeday (Which I believe is celebrated on Sunday the 10th of December in 2006), I shall quote a little of Cowper’s poetry, and couple it with a 20th century painting or two (one shown above) that I consider complement the subject matter.

-wolfe

UPDATE: I originally messed up and cited John Buchan, not John Bunyan as author of Pilgrim’s Progress. Buchan was an early 20th century British writer of thrillers; Bunyan wasn’t. Teri kindly corrected me, and it is corrected above in the original text.

I’m going to cover my butt with this one by creating a new tag, “humor”. Some of this is obviously satiric, namely the parts that offend you. I’m also going to use the term ‘communist’ herein in a fashion that may be offensive to pretty much everyone. The only people I do apologize to are readers from eastern Europe and south-east Asia who had the misfortune to live under it.

The muse has told me this shall be a little long, too. Be warned.

Regular readers know that I regard all those to the left of Genghis Khan with a suspicious and beady eye when it comes to politics . It makes life easy; basically everyone is suspect.

Wolfe eyes suspected communists and thinks about
eating them. source: Gary Kramer, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, via The Wolf Den at fohn.net

I’ve had some dismay over the Democrats winning, because, well, bluntly, the terrorists can spin it as a win, so polarized are our politics. And they don’t deserve to win. They’re a bunch of idiots with no real plan, no clue what they’re doing.

Of course, the problem is that the Republicans are a bunch of idiots with no real plan, no clue what they’re doing.

And the Republicans appear to have achieved what was long thought impossible: be more corrupt than the Democrats.

Oh, and I’ve had dismay over the Democrats winning because they’re even bigger communists than the Republicans.

Now, back to the terrorists spinning this as a win: I’ve been reluctant to say so, because I think it’s politics in the style of LBJ: “My opponent will incinerate the earth”, except in this case it’s possibly worse: “My opponent will surrender the earth to the terrorists and let them incinerate it”. OK, not as punchy, but pretty bad.

Also, it’s simply not true. The top 3 issues in voters’ minds were all related to corruption, competence and terrorism. Iraq — even of the “cutting and running variety” — was down at number 4.

Yet, the expected has happened. Terrorists have rejoiced. Except two funny things have also happened.

First, Bush blinked and accepted Rumsfeld’s resignation. Whether he fell on his sword or was pushed, same deal. I think it’s greatly to the President’s credit that he did so only after the elections. A lot of Republicans are bemoaning the fact that if he’d done so before the elections, they’d have won a lot of tight races and might still control the senate.

Let’s say that’s true. If it’s not, it makes no difference when Rumsfeld resigned. If true, the President put country ahead of party. Good for him. [I thought you were going to say nice things about Democrats, not the President -ed.]

Man, this thing about saying nice things about Democrats is harder than I thought. Have I done it yet? Let’s see, I called them idiots with no plans, stupid, corrupt communists… oh and I referred negatively to LBJ’s anti-Goldwater campaign… Oh! I said something nice about the President. He’s a Democrat, isn’t he? [No. --ed.]

What, pharmacare, open borders, the most massive expansion of the laughable Federal Department of Education since Jimmy Carter — he’s not a domestic Democrat in wolf’s clothing? [He seems it, but he really isn't. Especially on foreign policy. And you still need to say something nice about Democrats --ed.]

Saying he expanded the U.S. Department of Education isn’t a nice thing about Democrats? [No, because a) he's a Republican, and, b) you referred to them as laughable --ed.]

Hey! I’m on to you, ed guy! The US Department of Education’s URL is www.ed.gov! You’re from them aren’t you! Wolfe eyes ed, thinks about eating him. [(escapes) --ed.]

Still he had a point. Nice things about Democrats.

I like Nancy Pelosi’s fur… I mean hair?

Second, serially, as Al Gore is allegedly wont to say, a lot of people, including this wolf, believed that Nancy Pelosi was going to appoint the corrosively corrupt Alcee Hastings to Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. She’s not. Good.

Why not appoint the ranking Democrat? Good question. That’s Jane Harman, like Pelosi, a female congresscritter from California. This wolf honestly suspects that were Harman a man, she’d be appointed by Pelosi. Yeah, I’m accusing Pelosi of sexism, and being catty. Which in turn is sexist, and wolfish of me.

Anyway, long story short, it looks like the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee will be Silvestre Reyes. What, that’s a name? [yes -- ed.].

You’re back again? (wolfe growls [(vanishes) -- ed.])

And Congresscritter Reyes, a man who voted against the Iraq war and opposed the administration said something very interesting:

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.�

This is exactly the signal the Democrats need to send. Pin the war on Bush all you wish, but signal that the US will not be defeated, will not ‘cut and run’. That latter, of course, is a nifty campaign antidote to whatever Republican goes for the Presidency in ‘08, but it’s also got the virtue of being good for the country.

There we go. Nancy Pelosi didn’t appoint a corrupt guy, and Representative Silvestre Reyes said something pretty smart.

Two nice things about Democrats. [I knew you could do it --ed.]

You again!?

Oh well, now I can go back to being mean about them and chasing communists. (howls at the moon… is interrupted by a thought).

Wait! Both Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton have nice fur.

I mean hair.

There! Four nice things about Democrats!

-wolfe

I’m not altogether happy with the formatting of this post — please note I have a picture on the left and text to its right. Believe me, that took a half hour of messing about to look even half decent, and I know HTML. Probably not going to pursue it further, and yes, the paragraph breaks are not where they should be in the accompanying text. Believe it or not, that’s something I can’t readily control. That’s what I wasted time on. It’s good enough; so be it. Here are my arguments.
The minimum wage is a bad thing; being against it is therefore a good thing.

Why is the minimum wage a bad thing? Well it’s not bad if your objective is to harm the poor and render them unemployed. But most of us that aren’t sadistic or evil, don’t like harming the poor.

The minimum wage has an objective: give the working poor more money so they are less poor. I think it’s a very nice objective. I like it. I don’t know if it’s as good an objective as sex, looking at boobies [worksafe, and ooo, I better post a picture, below], or drinking nice scotch, but it’s a pretty good objective. It’s up there.

And now, a gratuitous picture.

Bet you thought it was going to be a picture of boobies, right? You lose. Photo Credit: Macallan website.

Back to the minimum wage. There’s one tiny catch of course. Where does the money we’re trying to get to the working poor come from?Well, answer the proponents of (inevitably) higher minimum wages, it comes from you and me via the businesses (and governments) that now pay their lowest-earning employees slightly more.This sounds to me kind of like a sneaky tax. And of course it is. Employers aren’t stupid. Well, actually quite a lot of them are, but they’re taken care of by a process called “bankruptcy”.Unless they’re a government.Washing dishes may be worth (say) $7.00 an hour to the owners of a small restaurant, but if the cost becomes $8, the owners will buy a dishwasher. The least competent dishwashers will be fired, and the most competent one will be retained to load and unload the dishwasher.

This isn’t simply a fancy argument: it’s been proven empirically by examining the correlation, while controlling for other variables (fancy words, I know), between minimum wage levels and unemployment rates amongst the poor, the untrained and the stupid (all of whom a high minimum wage hurts).

There are other groups of course that the minimum wage hurts as well, as I suggested above: the stupid and the untrained (typically students or young people).

True, you can tweak the minimum wage so that it doesn’t apply to (say) those under 18 — or even 27, in the case of certain labour laws in some enlightened European countries, but that still doesn’t help the poor or the stupid.

Ultimately, if your objective really is to help the employed poor, you’re best off setting a very low minimum wage of, say $1 or $2/hr, and utilizing some form of refundable (and even advanced) Earned Income Tax Credit.

You might also want to gut Social Security ‘head’ taxes as these are the most regressive and, arguably, racist taxes going.

This of course is also redistributive, and debatably socialist, but interferes far less and is economically rational and defensible.

And that, I suppose, is yet another reason why I’m no longer a libertarian — I just don’t object to some forms of income redistribution that much.

I’d rather my tax dollars go to educating poor legal immigrants’ kids than employing their (older) children to shoot illegal immigrants.

But that’s just me.

-wolfe